4 ms·

I'm not sure why you felt the need for that "[sic]".

by corin_ 14y ago

dfc 14y ago
I felt the need to use "[sic]" because that is the correct way to identify an intentionally transcribed error (An error in any context outside of twitter and txt speak).
- corin_ 14y ago
  I'm aware of its meaning, I was asking why you felt the need to use it. Admittedly I'm pretty tired, but I'm not seeing the error you noticed. Side note for when you've pointed out my error: in many places [sic] is extremely useful, in contexts such as this it serves as a rather passive aggressive way of complaining about a typo.
  - dfc 14y ago
    You have edited this post three or four times now. It is tough to know how it will read in a few hours. I thought it was odd that someone would criticize another's work as being the most irrelevant sentence and yet they would make a basic grammar error twice. You failed to include the indefinite article "a" after "in" and before "journalistic context" (adjective+noun).
    - corin_ 14y ago
      1) I edited it once, immediately after initially posting it - to add a new sentence at the end. 2) Do you honestly care about something that is technically slightly incorrect when really it's fine in an informal setting? 3) Not sure how it would be odd, even if my coment had been litered with speling mistakes. I was commenting on the content of that sentence, not how it was written. Feel free to be a pedant the next time you see my bitching about someone's spelling or grammar.
      - dfc 14y ago
        1. Seriously? I cannot sleep so I will play along; you edited the post at least three times. At first I got an email from hnnotify[1] with: "I'm aware of its meaning, I was asking why you felt the need to use it." When I visited the "my threads" link on HN you had included: "Admittedly I'm pretty tired, but I'm not seeing the error you noticed." Then I clicked "link" because the thread was so nested we had hit the cool off period and there was no reply link in the long discussion page. At that point you had included the "passive aggressive" line. I typed my response and did a "select all + copy" followed by a reload just to make sure you had not edited it again. I thought it looked like it was typeset slightly differently but I could not identify precisely what had changed. At that point I changed the "three" to "three or four" and submitted my answer. 2. Yes. Before I charge someone (who writes for a living) with producing the most irrelevant sentence I am at least going to try and meet the standards of my 8th grade english teacher. It is funny that the person who knows "what should have happened" is always the arm-chair quarterback. 3. "even if my coment[sic] had been litered[sic] with speling[sic] mistakes." Are you screwing with me? If so well played because I almost woke my girlfriend up when I realized what you did with that sentence. [1] HNNotify sends almost instantaneous email notifications when you have a reply. It is a great way to avoid clicking "threads" every 15 minutes. But it also comes in handy for petty discussions like this. My favorite is reading comments that get deleted shortly after posting. http://www.hnnotify.com http://www.hnnotify.com
        corin_ 14y ago
        1) I thought you were referring to my original comment, i.e. the one whose grammar we were discussing, not a different one that wasn't being discussed. That one, yes I edited it twice, firstly because I felt my one-sentence reply was overly blunt, then again because having decided my original comment wasn't nice, I then felt neither was your [sic], so I added in my point about that too. Not sure it really matters too much when, one again, I made these edits within a minute of posting. I'll show an "edit" mark in my comment if there's a chance someone might have replied and therefore been misrepresented, but why bother when hardly anybody will have read it yet? (You two make changes like this, I notice you at first missed "litered" and "speling".) 2) Again... relevance? The reason I "was screwing with you" was to make the point that spelling and grammar are not the be all and end all. A good point can be made with terrible spelling, and nonsense can be written impeccably skillfully. "Im board of this discussion now" vs. "This discussion fascinates me", one of those is a valid statement, the other is grammatically correct.

I'm not sure why you felt the need for that "[sic]".

by corin_ 14y ago

I'm not sure why you felt the need for that "[sic]".

dfc 14y ago

I felt the need to use "[sic]" because that is the correct way to identify an intentionally transcribed error (An error in any context outside of twitter and txt speak).

corin_ 14y ago
I'm aware of its meaning, I was asking why you felt the need to use it. Admittedly I'm pretty tired, but I'm not seeing the error you noticed. Side note for when you've pointed out my error: in many places [sic] is extremely useful, in contexts such as this it serves as a rather passive aggressive way of complaining about a typo.
- dfc 14y ago
  You have edited this post three or four times now. It is tough to know how it will read in a few hours. I thought it was odd that someone would criticize another's work as being the most irrelevant sentence and yet they would make a basic grammar error twice. You failed to include the indefinite article "a" after "in" and before "journalistic context" (adjective+noun).
  - corin_ 14y ago
    1) I edited it once, immediately after initially posting it - to add a new sentence at the end. 2) Do you honestly care about something that is technically slightly incorrect when really it's fine in an informal setting? 3) Not sure how it would be odd, even if my coment had been litered with speling mistakes. I was commenting on the content of that sentence, not how it was written. Feel free to be a pedant the next time you see my bitching about someone's spelling or grammar.
    - dfc 14y ago
      1. Seriously? I cannot sleep so I will play along; you edited the post at least three times. At first I got an email from hnnotify[1] with: "I'm aware of its meaning, I was asking why you felt the need to use it." When I visited the "my threads" link on HN you had included: "Admittedly I'm pretty tired, but I'm not seeing the error you noticed." Then I clicked "link" because the thread was so nested we had hit the cool off period and there was no reply link in the long discussion page. At that point you had included the "passive aggressive" line. I typed my response and did a "select all + copy" followed by a reload just to make sure you had not edited it again. I thought it looked like it was typeset slightly differently but I could not identify precisely what had changed. At that point I changed the "three" to "three or four" and submitted my answer. 2. Yes. Before I charge someone (who writes for a living) with producing the most irrelevant sentence I am at least going to try and meet the standards of my 8th grade english teacher. It is funny that the person who knows "what should have happened" is always the arm-chair quarterback. 3. "even if my coment[sic] had been litered[sic] with speling[sic] mistakes." Are you screwing with me? If so well played because I almost woke my girlfriend up when I realized what you did with that sentence. [1] HNNotify sends almost instantaneous email notifications when you have a reply. It is a great way to avoid clicking "threads" every 15 minutes. But it also comes in handy for petty discussions like this. My favorite is reading comments that get deleted shortly after posting. http://www.hnnotify.com http://www.hnnotify.com
      - corin_ 14y ago
        1) I thought you were referring to my original comment, i.e. the one whose grammar we were discussing, not a different one that wasn't being discussed. That one, yes I edited it twice, firstly because I felt my one-sentence reply was overly blunt, then again because having decided my original comment wasn't nice, I then felt neither was your [sic], so I added in my point about that too. Not sure it really matters too much when, one again, I made these edits within a minute of posting. I'll show an "edit" mark in my comment if there's a chance someone might have replied and therefore been misrepresented, but why bother when hardly anybody will have read it yet? (You two make changes like this, I notice you at first missed "litered" and "speling".) 2) Again... relevance? The reason I "was screwing with you" was to make the point that spelling and grammar are not the be all and end all. A good point can be made with terrible spelling, and nonsense can be written impeccably skillfully. "Im board of this discussion now" vs. "This discussion fascinates me", one of those is a valid statement, the other is grammatically correct.